Angus French wrote:Chris, it looks to me as thoughthe 2015 accounts are the latest. These were published for the General Assembly meetings at Baku in 2016. Presumably the 2016 accounts will be published for the 2017 General Assembly meetings (whenever in 2017 they take place). The FIDE-Agon agreement came into effect in early 2012 so I'd guess that payments from Agon ought to be reflected in FIDE's accounts from 2012 onwards.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer that its the period that Merenzon has been the CEO and not when Andrew Paulson was that I'm interested in. Though even here I, like Roger, can't see where they paid any money to FIDE. The only line items for AGON for 2013 (which would have covered the 2012 Candidates) are where FIDE paid CHF 17,697 in expenses to AGON and 2014 where FIDE paid AGON CHF1,785 in expenses. Previously, I discussed the matter directly with Andrew Paulson who always maintained there was an understanding that FIDE wouldn't ask for the terms of the agreement to be honoured until some actual money was made by AGON. He reckoned he lost quite a bit of his own money, which I don't doubt, before he decided to dump the whole project which Merenzon clearly picked up with the promise that he wouldn't have to pay FIDE either until he was in profit. At the time, Andrew Paulson, wouldn't tell me exactly who he agreed it with but presumably, as Roger hints, it was more than likely, Kirsan with the tacit agreement of the PB. It'll be interesting to see when the latest set of audited accounts are published exactly what the situation is with regard to the AGON arrears.

Chris Rice wrote:Perhaps I should have made it clearer that its the period that Merenzon has been the CEO and not when Andrew Paulson was that I'm interested in.

Though what you wrote was "Andrew Paulson who in turn got the marketing rights in a grubby little deal with FIDE".

Chris Rice wrote:Though even here I, like Roger, can't see where they paid any money to FIDE. The only line items for AGON for 2013 (which would have covered the 2012 Candidates) are where FIDE paid CHF 17,697 in expenses to AGON and 2014 where FIDE paid AGON CHF1,785 in expenses.

The link is the accounts for 2012 and not, as the label states, 2013. The 2013 accounts, which can be found here, show prize money income from the Candidates of 102,000 EUR.

Chris Rice wrote:Previously, I discussed the matter directly with Andrew Paulson who always maintained there was an understanding that FIDE wouldn't ask for the terms of the agreement to be honoured until some actual money was made by AGON.

While I recall FIDE exempting Agon from an initial payment as a Grand Prix event was switched to London at short notice (resulting in extra expenses for Agon), I don't recall anything beyond that. If anything had been agreed beyond that it would presumably be a matter of public record and would be apparent in published accounts. FIDE's published accounts *do* show prize money income from the events which Agon were contracted to organise.

Chris Rice wrote:He [Andrew Paulson] reckoned he lost quite a bit of his own money, which I don't doubt, before he decided to dump the whole project which Merenzon clearly picked up with the promise that he wouldn't have to pay FIDE either until he was in profit.

Do you have any evidence for the last part of this or is it just speculation? What about, for example, the prize money income from the 2014 World Championship match which shows as 251,640 EUR in FIDE's 2014 accounts?

Chris Rice wrote:Perhaps I should have made it clearer that its the period that Merenzon has been the CEO and not when Andrew Paulson was that I'm interested in.

Though what you wrote was "Andrew Paulson who in turn got the marketing rights in a grubby little deal with FIDE".

Indeed, that was why I made it clearer. Regarding the other matters I was referring to the accounts published in 2013 covering the 2012 period. We may be splitting hairs on that one. The substance is that you refer to prize money for the Candidates itemised in the 2013/2014 accounts but exactly where that money came from or how it was calculated is not detailed in either set of accounts or explained in the notes to the accounts and additionally it refers to Candidates matches which is odd. I'm sure its some sponsors money but whether it can be attributed to AGON is not that clear to me. You also say any understanding not to chase AGON for arrears until they make some money would be a matter of public record but I don't see why it should be.

We have no evidence of whether AGON have paid anything to FIDE. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. The FIDE accounts don't make it any clearer, except perhaps to show that FIDE have made payments to AGON. What we do is that they have (or had) arrears as stated in the PR statement from the 1st PB meeting of this year.

Chris Rice wrote: Though it seems to be this frivolous litigation has had effect on certain sites such as Chess24.

There aren't 600 million people following online chess. I'm not sure how big the audience really is, but sites like chess24 and others keep it going by broadcasting many events, even including those of relatively local interest such as the British Championship.

It was them or another site which concluded that Agon needed their audience rather more than they needed to broadcast the Grand Prix.

Apparently the latest idea is to use the FIDE Ethics Commission and National equivalents as an enforcer against anyone who uses the long established rights to report on and for that matter discuss a game of chess as it happens.

Video and commentary coverage by an organiser or FIDE is already theirs under equally long established broadcasting rights.

Indeed, Matvey Shekhovtsov of Agon has presented FIDE with a "Draft Policy" on the subject -

FIDE LIVE MOVES BROADCASTING POLICY
1. Introduction
1.1. This section describes the Live moves broadcasting policy of FIDE (“Policy”).
1.2. This Policy shall govern what action may be taken against any person (meaning either an individual or organization) that deliberately or through gross negligence violates the exclusive right to organize live move-by-move broadcast of FIDE events.
1.3. The FIDE Ethics Commission is responsible for any actions to be taken in accordance with this Policy.
2. Right to organize live moves broadcasting
2.1. FIDE shall have the exclusive right to organize the live move-by-move broadcast of FIDE events (“Broadcasting right”). FIDE may at its sole discretion assign this right to third parties, including the organizer’s of FIDE events and/or its appointed commercial agencies.
2.2. The exclusivity of the Broadcasting right shall only extend for the whole duration of the broadcasted game. After the end of the game the notation can be used without any further restrictions.
2.3. Use of up to 10 consecutive moves in one piece of communication (e.g. on one web-page; in one video piece) shall be regarded as fair use which does not interfere with the Broadcasting right.
3. Violation of the Broadcasting right
3.1. The following actions shall be regarded as violations of the Broadcasting right:
a) unauthorized live move-by-move broadcasting of FIDE events via any means of communication including, but not limited to Internet, Radio and Television;
b) participation in the unauthorized live move-by-move broadcasting as commentator or author;
c) advertising and/or promoting unauthorized live move-by-move broadcasting.2
4. Violators
4.1. Type I violators («Violators I») include persons listed in item 1.4 of the FIDE Code of Ethics that performed actions listed in item 3.1 of this Policy.
4.2. Type II violators («Violators II») include persons who are not listed in item 1.4 of the FIDE Code of Ethics that performed actions listed in item 3.1 of this Policy.
4.3. The fact of the violation shall be determined by the FIDE Ethics Commission upon the complaint of the Broadcasting right holder
5. Measures to be taken in respect of Violators I.
5.1. Violation of the Broadcasting right by Violators I shall be considered to be a breach of the FIDE Code of Ethics.
5.2. The general procedure previewed by the FIDE Code of Ethics and respective punishments shall apply.
6. Measures to be taken in respect of Violators II.
6.1. Violators II shall be added to the special list (“FIDE Blacklist”) for the period to be determined by the FIDE Ethics Commission on the basis of the severity of violation. Such period in any case shall not exceed 10 (ten) years.
2 This item does not apply to automated advertising services like Google AdWords or Yahoo! Bing Network.
6.2. Persons listed in item 1.4 of the FIDE Code of Ethics are prohibited from entering into any commercial or other cooperation, partnership or any other contractual relationship with the persons listed on FIDE Blacklist. Violation of this provision shall be considered a breach of the FIDE
Code of Ethics.
6.3. FIDE Secretariat shall be responsible for updating the FIDE Blacklist in accordance with the decisions of the FIDE Ethics Commission and publishing it on the FIDE website.
6.4. Person may be excluded from the FIDE Blacklist if it reaches an amicable agreement with the Broadcasting right holder and undertakes to abstain from violating the Broadcasting right in future.

I guess Agon haven't read the bit in the FIDE principles of being against blacklists in general.
If they've any sense they'll send Mr Shekhovtsov and Agon away with a flea in their ear.

I guess Agon haven't read the bit in the FIDE principles of being against blacklists in general.
If they've any sense they'll send Mr Shekhovtsov and Agon away with a flea in their ear.

They are also denying the long standing historic convention already endorsed in various national courts that recording that the world champion's first move was to move his pawn two squares to the King's fourth is a description of an event and not intellectual property, as is the modern equivalent of recording it as 1. e4 .

I happened to notice that the chess.com website gives a membership headcount. It currently stands at just under 20 million. Impressive, but nowhere near 600 million. It claims just under 75,000 currently online.

I’ve seen two reports on twitter from established journalists - Peter Doggers & Leonard Ootes - asking why Agon are charging money to watch the video feed of the Grand Prix via their website whilst giving the same video away for free via Facebook.

Now *that* is a new broadcast model

It's not that uncommon - sometimes an organisation will do that in a region where they haven't sold TV rights, or do it for the 1st round as a teaser so that people are motivated to buy the package for subsequent rounds. For example, BT Sport streamed the England warmup game the other day via its Facebook page, but I doubt they'll do that for the Tests.